LOVEEN BABU VUPPALA,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1121/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Loveen Babu Vuppala Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward-9(1) [Pan : Alppv1796E] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms.Aluru V Sai Sudha, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], Kolkata, Pertaining To A.Y.2021-22 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay & Not Admitting The Appeal 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Holding That There Was No Sufficient Cause For Condoning The Delay In Filing The Appeal

Section 91 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 have been drafted specifically to avoid the burden of double taxation. 7. In the present case, even though the petitioner had not uploaded Form-67 while filing return of tax, later he uploaded the same with delay and that too due to Covid out break he was not able

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

condone the delay in filing the appeal before us on the ground that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, we admit the appeals for hearing and adjudication. 4. As the facts and grounds raised are similar in all the three appeals of the assessee and three appeals of the revenue, except the quantum

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

condone the delay in filing the appeal before us on the ground that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, we admit the appeals for hearing and adjudication. 4. As the facts and grounds raised are similar in all the three appeals of the assessee and three appeals of the revenue, except the quantum

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, HYDERABAD vs. M/S CONCORD DRUGS LTD.,, HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

condone the delay in filing the appeal before us on the ground that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, we admit the appeals for hearing and adjudication. 4. As the facts and grounds raised are similar in all the three appeals of the assessee and three appeals of the revenue, except the quantum

CONCORD DRUGS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee in all the years under consideration are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

condone the delay in filing the appeal before us on the ground that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, we admit the appeals for hearing and adjudication. 4. As the facts and grounds raised are similar in all the three appeals of the assessee and three appeals of the revenue, except the quantum

PADMINI CHAND, HYDERABAD,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devismt. Padmini Chand Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Pan: Aaipc 2110 R Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Rajini Chand Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Circle 6(1) Pan: Aaipc 2105 J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

202 days respectively. It is stated that they were not aware of the appellate proceedings and did not have the back records or the assessment orders as these were given to their representatives but they were not returned to them. They also recited their personal loss of their mother and the dispute with their father and various disputes in relation

AMITH VISHNAV GUDIMELLA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1705/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Amith Vishnav The Income Tax Officer, Gudimella, Hyderabad. Ward-12(1), Pin – 500 008. Telangana. Vs. Hyderabad. Pan Aghpv2565J Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri T Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

202/- and paid tax in US of Rs.5,55,111/-. After returning to India, the assessee was employed with Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., and earned salary income Rs.8,83,728/-in India during the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. The assessee duly reported the aggregate salary income earned both in USA and in India under

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the respective delay(s) of 453 and 128 days in the A.Ys 2013-14 and 2015-16 appeals ITA Nos.1554/Hyd/2018 and 1599/Hyd/2019. These cases are taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. It next emerges that the assessee’s identical sole of substantive ground raised in all the instant appeals challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities action disallowing

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the respective delay(s) of 453 and 128 days in the A.Ys 2013-14 and 2015-16 appeals ITA Nos.1554/Hyd/2018 and 1599/Hyd/2019. These cases are taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. It next emerges that the assessee’s identical sole of substantive ground raised in all the instant appeals challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities action disallowing

MANJEERA PROJECTS ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the respective delay(s) of 453 and 128 days in the A.Ys 2013-14 and 2015-16 appeals ITA Nos.1554/Hyd/2018 and 1599/Hyd/2019. These cases are taken up for adjudication on merits. 4. It next emerges that the assessee’s identical sole of substantive ground raised in all the instant appeals challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities action disallowing

MULAKALA MOHAN KRISHNA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.432/Hyd/2025 4 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is the proprietor of M/s. Sarvotham Care, having income from two units, one being a solar power generation unit eligible for deduction under section 80IA

SRINIVAS EMMADI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

202/- towards transport charges and hamali charges are\nwithout property verification and therefore the same is liable to be\ndeleted.\n7. Any other ground will be raised at the time of hearing.\"\nITA No.32/Hyd/2024 | 3\n3.\nAt the outset, it was observed that, there is a delay of 144 days\nin filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. In support

NEELAKANTA REDDY MUDDAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-11(1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Neelakanta Reddy Muddam V Ito,Ward-11(1) F.No.202, 2Nd Floor S. Room No.1006, Kunapa Reddy’S Castle Singature Towers Towers, Anjaneya Nagar, Opp. Botanical Garden Moosapet, Kothaguda Hyderabad-522 002 Hyderabad-500 084

delay in filing these appeals is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 5. In the present case, ld.CIT(A) had dismiss the appeal of the assessee on account of nonappearance and no finding were recorded on merit . It was prayed that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. MADHUCON TOLL HIGHWAYS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

202 days delay in filing before the ITAT. In this connection, the assessee has filed a petition for :- 2 -: ITA No. 1487 & 2100/Hyd/2018 M/s Madhucon Toll Highways Ltd., Hyd. condonation of delay along with an affidavit, wherein, it was affirmed that since the Pr. CIT(A)’s order misplaced by one of its staff and tracing out the same caused

MADHUCON TOLL HIGHWAYS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

202 days delay in filing before the ITAT. In this connection, the assessee has filed a petition for :- 2 -: ITA No. 1487 & 2100/Hyd/2018 M/s Madhucon Toll Highways Ltd., Hyd. condonation of delay along with an affidavit, wherein, it was affirmed that since the Pr. CIT(A)’s order misplaced by one of its staff and tracing out the same caused

MALIHA SYEDA,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the “lead” appeal of the assessee ITA.No.833/Hyd./2024 for the assessment year 2013-2014 is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

202, [Int. Taxn.)-2, Aaykar 8-2-601/B/GP, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Bhawan, Opposite LB Khairatabad, Banjara vs. Statidum, Basheerbagh, Hills S.O. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Telangana. Telangana. PIN – 500 004 PAN EIYPS0419F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 ORDER PER BENCH

MALIHA SYEDA,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the “lead” appeal of the assessee ITA.No.833/Hyd./2024 for the assessment year 2013-2014 is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

202, [Int. Taxn.)-2, Aaykar 8-2-601/B/GP, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Bhawan, Opposite LB Khairatabad, Banjara vs. Statidum, Basheerbagh, Hills S.O. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Telangana. Telangana. PIN – 500 004 PAN EIYPS0419F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 ORDER PER BENCH

MALIHA SYEDA,USA vs. ITO (INT TAXN)-2, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the “lead” appeal of the assessee ITA.No.833/Hyd./2024 for the assessment year 2013-2014 is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

202, [Int. Taxn.)-2, Aaykar 8-2-601/B/GP, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Bhawan, Opposite LB Khairatabad, Banjara vs. Statidum, Basheerbagh, Hills S.O. Hyderabad – 500 034 Hyderabad. Telangana. Telangana. PIN – 500 004 PAN EIYPS0419F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 ORDER PER BENCH